tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post355340725077750927..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: "Climate hoax" conspiracy theorists don't value logic or evidence - who knew :)Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77101910043818922382017-11-30T23:47:19.735+11:002017-11-30T23:47:19.735+11:00It is reported that aides are concerned over Trump...It is reported that <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-president-mental-health-white-house-aides-art-of-the-deal-author-tony-schwartz-a8083951.html" rel="nofollow">aides are concerned over Trump's mental health</a>. I think he's merely showing the standard traits of climate change deniers: traits we have been observing for years now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20029121843328277532017-11-20T07:06:46.859+11:002017-11-20T07:06:46.859+11:00"outgassing due to continental drift" H..."outgassing due to continental drift" Hmmm. you must admit outgassing during continental drift has been major problem in Earth's past. Just need to go back to the formation of the Deccan Traps some 66 million years ago , or the Siberian Traps 500 million years ago, to see the truth in that.<br />----------------<br /><br />Oh the great irony, at least from an Earth-centrist perspective.<br /><br />..., When tectonic plates collide and continents erupt with volcanism which fills the air with GHGs, among other goodies, it always has radically decimated, sometimes annihilated impacts of the populations and species that inhabited the Earth at that moment because much couldn’t cope with the new conditions.<br /><br />When humans come along and do what continent wide volcanism has done, <br />perhaps much clearer and more processed than those sloppy volcanoes, <br />but also much much faster. <br /><br />The incipient damaging disruptions are everywhere to be seen, and each impacts other situations, one thing leads to another. People who can only imagine the next financial statement or election cycle don’t have the prerequisites to understand this stuff and that has made all this so tragic ...<br /><br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/11/on-communicating-climate-reality.html<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60307015053806733832017-11-18T22:06:57.541+11:002017-11-18T22:06:57.541+11:00It seems that, over at WUWT's favourite news o...It seems that, over at WUWT's favourite news organisation, viewers are demanding that Shep Smith be fired. This is because he pointed out to them that Hilary Clinton was not in a position to sell uranium to the Russians. Apparently, Faux News viewers prefer to be lied to.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6489493645140400572017-11-15T23:22:07.413+11:002017-11-15T23:22:07.413+11:00We've been at this for decades, and making no ...We've been at this for decades, and making no substantive progress in that time. As stupid, ignorant, and/or mendacious as the deniers are, they're winning if winning means that we're not addressing the root cause. And we're not making a dent in it...<br /><br /><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/global-carbon-emissions-set-rise-after-three-year-pause-180967193/" rel="nofollow">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/global-carbon-emissions-set-rise-after-three-year-pause-180967193/</a><br /><br />Yes, I know what you're thinking - "there goes Bernard J, harping on again about the ecological apocalypse." Well, yes, I am, but so are 15,000 of my colleagues:<br /><br /><a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229" rel="nofollow">https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229</a><br /><br />It's done and dusted people, and even the choice that we had as to how bad it will be is rapidly shrinking in its alternative options. Especially for those who were born after the Rio Earth Summit back in 1992 - for folk in that demographic the choice in the future will not be whether they live the ends of their lives well, but whether they live them badly or die prematurely.<br /><br />The chance for a happy ending passed years ago, and probably before any of us even started blogging about it. But give the denialists their due - they've succeeded spectacularly in robbing the future in order to indulge their transient aspirations.<br /><br /><a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/7c/be/a57cbe2fa57f6b2a83e3431b578b4660.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/7c/be/a57cbe2fa57f6b2a83e3431b578b4660.jpg</a>Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62370530228505841892017-11-15T17:11:37.557+11:002017-11-15T17:11:37.557+11:00magma said:
" a sort of lazy, self-satisfied ...magma said:<br /><i>" a sort of lazy, self-satisfied picture of themselves as being far more competent and more knowledgeable about areas of climate science than they actually are."</i><br /><br />It seems to me that you are describing Richard Lindzen. The shorter descriptive term: smugness@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43574444750896916872017-11-15T07:12:45.296+11:002017-11-15T07:12:45.296+11:00lol, yes maybe - like the famous Nils-Axel Mörner ...lol, yes maybe - like the famous Nils-Axel Mörner "slanted" graph to show sea level <br /><br />they have no shame Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62020014985646130272017-11-15T05:06:47.935+11:002017-11-15T05:06:47.935+11:00The Wattites' reactions are amusing, but all t...The Wattites' reactions are amusing, but all too predictable. Robert Burns put it one way:<br /><br />O wad some Power the giftie gie us <br />To see oursels as ithers see us! <br />It wad frae mony a blunder free us, <br />An' foolish notion<br /><br />and Richard Feynman another: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."<br /><br />Although to be clear, Feynman was cautioning young scientists to keep an open mind, to critically examine every aspect of their experiments and hypotheses, and never to fall in love with their ideas. It's a stretch to put Wattites in that class.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13167890752459013692017-11-15T04:58:12.079+11:002017-11-15T04:58:12.079+11:00I know a few contrarians who hold MSc or PhDs in t...I know a few contrarians who hold MSc or PhDs in the physical sciences, or undergraduate/graduate degrees in engineering. The one common feature they share, more so than their political leanings or their economic self-interest, is a sort of lazy, self-satisfied picture of themselves as being far more competent and more knowledgeable about areas of climate science than they actually are.<br /><br />This group also includes several older tenured professors of Earth Science who have taught undergraduate courses in climate change, and possess shocking ignorance of even basic aspects of AGW.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11040410631767831442017-11-15T04:50:27.313+11:002017-11-15T04:50:27.313+11:00Hah. Perhaps the graph was literally upside down!Hah. Perhaps the graph was literally upside down!Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29536559107149504192017-11-15T03:28:44.860+11:002017-11-15T03:28:44.860+11:00"Upside down thinking"
michael shermer ..."Upside down thinking"<br /><br />michael shermer makes this point when debating "deniers" in "Merchants of Doubt"<br /><br />he says he puts up a graph showing ever rising temperatures, they then put up the SAME graph and argue the earth is cooling <br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82858757330919505332017-11-15T02:31:30.166+11:002017-11-15T02:31:30.166+11:00Too true. It's been obvious for quite a while ...Too true. It's been obvious for quite a while now that the vast majority of Watts' readers only read his skewed/dog whistle analysis of a paper, and then jump straight to the comment section to have a go at the scientists.<br /><br />The chances of any of them taking the time to even read the summary of a paper is approaching zero.metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89526249701168031332017-11-15T02:04:01.767+11:002017-11-15T02:04:01.767+11:00Quoting a bit from their conclusions:
"Build...Quoting a bit from their conclusions:<br /><br />"Building on previous work linking cognitive ability to skepticism, we demonstrate that this link is primarily there among people who view it as important that their beliefs are epistemically rational. The present findings thus illustrate that a high cognitive ability does not inoculate people against irrational beliefs in and of itself; they must also be dedicated to use their cognitive ability in pursuit of the truth."<br /><br />I personally know WUWT fans with very high cognitive and analytical abilities. Consistent with the research the paper cites, those people also tend to rely more on intuitive thinking and, in my experience, are much more committed to the belief that they are right than they are to actually being right. This makes them highly resistant to updating their beliefs to account for contrary evidence, where a commitment to epistemic rationality requires a willingness to account for whatever the evidence shows.<br /><br />The WUWT fans I know best are also prone to skimming content looking for the bits they find interesting, resisting reading carefully and engaging with arguments they find disagreeable. Intuitive thinking favors short, simple arguments that sound reasonable (e.g., "CO2 is plant food", a gross simplification). Watts, AFAICT, considers himself a true skeptic, and picked out just enough of the article to think it supports him.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867691959969270844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89836242184027856722017-11-14T23:53:56.326+11:002017-11-14T23:53:56.326+11:00"Upside down thinking"
Yes, I have noti...<i><b>"Upside down thinking"</b></i><br /><br />Yes, I have noticed this. To the point I am confused what side they are arguing sometimes. This is quite noticeable in this recent article at WUWT - "Something else the climate scientists missed: outgassing due to continental drift"<br /><br />Now, I have to admit I get quite bored trying to follow the tortuous thinking of deniers. But I <b>think</b> Watts is arguing that the paper supports his contention that scientists do not know what they are talking about and have missed a whole lot of CO2 that is, of course, not human-made. But look at the comments. Almost universally they are attacking, undermining and mocking the paper - thus nullifying what Watts is trying to say. Did any of them actually read the article before commenting? Pavlovian describes this I think. <br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62721422481606919022017-11-14T23:32:23.652+11:002017-11-14T23:32:23.652+11:00The size of president's inauguration crowds co...The size of president's inauguration crowds comes to mind. I wonder where the Trump fans at WUWT stand on that.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com